Why do people prefer engineering/applied science over pure science?

[metalrose]

Thanks to all for pouring in your views...

The main arguments I see emerging :

1.) MONEY + STABILITY = BETTER LIFE

I guess that is true and that at the end of the day it does matter what you earn so that you could feed a family and live a comfortable life. Comfort in life, at a point, does seem to take a priority over every other thing in the world, and that's why I guess many people change their minds midway through their degrees.

And so, this happens to be the main reason, I guess, most people end up in applied areas.

2.) PERSONAL PREFERENCE FOR APPLIED OVER PURE

Then there are people who say they don't prefer fundamental questions over practical /engineering related problems.

This could be the case certainly. But what I feel is that people do feel that way not so much because the fundamental questions are any more boring or useless inherently but more so because most people tend to get put off by the amount of intellectual labor required to answer such questions and the uncertainty associated with finding answers to such questions despite the hard work you may put in.

I simply can't agree with guys who say that they don't get intellectually aroused by fundamental questions as much as they do by technical questions.

I think, asking fundamental questions, and trying to find answers to them, is central to human curiosity.

I don't think that if we had an answer to "why is the universe just the way it is" or "why is the universe there at all", anybody would feel uninterested in the answer.

But maybe I am wrong...
But I simply can't get hold of how a human being cannot be interested in fundamental questions, because being able to ask such questions is what sets us apart from every other species on the planet.

And it is this very kind of curiosity, that led to the philosophical and then later scientific revolution, which then led to the technological one.

I guess if all scientists were to stop thinking in fundamental terms and were to think in much more technical/application terms, sciences would cease to exist and all of applied science would become a bottleneck of sorts without any further developments
whereas this argument wouldn't hold the other way round.

Yeah, I mean if applied scientists were to stop doing what they are doing, experimental scientists would suffer a lot, but the scientific method or activity would still go on...and then of course scientists can always come together and build experimental setup for themselves when they need one, they can always create technology, because all of technology comes from their science itself.

 

[lurky]

You're trying to make this out to be a black and white sort of thing and I really think you should consider that there are lots of reasons why people do what they do. Sure, if you look at a population, you may find a few trends, but there will be massive numbers of people who fall somewhere in between.

Anyway, I love fundamental questions and I ponder them all the time. I think that the most interesting questions stem from experiment (application), though.

Just be happy that you've found what you love, and that others have found what they love.

 

[Jokerhelper]

This thread is ridiculous. metalrose, you asked a question and plenty of people answered, many of whom happen to have plenty of experience in various fields of science and engineering. Yet, you essentially ignored large part of their reasons and came to almost the same conclusions you had at the beginning. Just to quote from your last post:

This could be the case certainly. But what I feel is that people do feel that way not so much because the fundamental questions are any more boring or useless inherently but more so because most people tend to get put off by the amount of intellectual labor required to answer such questions and the uncertainty associated with finding answers to such questions despite the hard work you may put in.

I simply can't agree with guys who say that they don't get intellectually aroused by fundamental questions as much as they do by technical questions.

Pardon if I ask, by how are you able to make such arrogant claims? After all, you happen to be still an undergrad student. So what work have you done, or what knowledge do you have of these fields to be able to contradict their reasons for their own choices?

But I simply can't get hold of how a human being cannot be interested in fundamental questions, because being able to ask such questions is what sets us apart from every other species on the planet.

Is it so hard to understand that other people may have different interests from yours? Again, other posters already explained this to you.

I guess if all scientists were to stop thinking in fundamental terms and were to think in much more technical/application terms, sciences would cease to exist and all of applied science would become a bottleneck of sorts without any further developments
whereas this argument wouldn't hold the other way round.

Yeah, I mean if applied scientists were to stop doing what they are doing, experimental scientists would suffer a lot, but the scientific method or activity would still go on...and then of course scientists can always come together and build experimental setup for themselves when they need one, they can always create technology, because all of technology comes from their science itself.

That's a very bold claim to make, which could perhaps be a good topic for another discussion. Here, however, you're arguing that "pure" scientists are more essential than "applied" ones. If that's what you believed all along, why couldn't you have just said so from the beginning?

According to you, some people prefer engineering or applied sciences over pure sciences mainly because of money, job stability, and a better life. Another reason for their choice may be due to personal preference or interest, but you disagree with them because you can't perceive how anyone could find anything more intellectually arousing than seeking answers to the "fundamental questions" (despite others already telling you that science doesn't necessarily deal with them). If you already had an answer to your own question, then why did you make this thread in the first place?

 

[metalrose]

@jokerhelper

I have certainly held the view all along, that fundamental questions do have a certain significance and value over and above most other things in the world.

Now obviously every body wouldn't like to make an occupation out of it and sure I do understand that.

My reply was addressed to those posts which claim that technical questions for them meant more than fundamental ones, and I fail to see how that can be.

And as I said earlier, if we did have answers to many deep questions eluding us today, for instance, "why did the big bang occur in the first place" , could you find people who would be least bothered about the answer to the question of why they exist?

Even if you could, that would be a minority.

It's a different thing if you find it pointless to spend an entire life over finding answers to such questions, and would prefer to engage in something else, but that doesn't mean that such questions are less interesting than many others.

How do I know that? Well obviously I haven't gone about asking each and every guy whether or not they find such questions interesting or curious enough, but that's as much a fact about human beings as is that most humans go to bed at night, again not that I have checked whether most do so or not.

For instance if we had an answer to a deep question and on the other hand we had an answer to a technological problem. Almost every one would be interested in knowing the answer to a deep question that affects all of us and that is central to human beings' existence and on the other hand, not all of them would feel like getting to know more about a technology, unless it has direct impact on their lives.

The argument that I'm making is that there are certain questions that are not specific in nature but pretty much universal in nature, which do matter to every human. Whether or not you consider it worthwhile to spend your entire life on it, is a different matter, a matter which I was trying to discuss through this question.

You are confusing these two aspects.

If we had an answer to a fundamental question, could you find me an engineer/applied scientist who would be least bothered/ uninterested in it?

 

[metalrose]

@jokerhelper

You also talked about how pure science may not necessarily deal with answering the sort of questions I put forth.

It may not deal with them explicitly, and it may not have enough evidence in favor or against such issues, and so such questions may not qualify as science in today's time, but finding answers to such questions is the driving force behind scientific thinking as far as I know.

There were times when gravity and the motion of stars in the sky were as big a mystery to people as god seems to be today.
And there was no clear method to find answers to such questions back then. But there were individuals who were driven by the curiosity about such phenomena and who ultimately explained such phenomena.

The same could be said for the elusive questions of today which may not even lie within the domain of science currently but which may in the future, and which certainly drive a lot of people to do science.

And I don't think questions like "why did the big bang take place" lie totally outside of current physics.

 

[dydxforsn]

I just graduated with my B.S. in physics, and I'm finding out the hard way that the answer to your question is simply employability. This also explains why you would constantly get the question, "oh, and what do you want to do with your degree?" when you would tell someone what you were doing in college.

 

[Evo]

This thread is over a year old, please try to take note of how long a thread has been dead before you post.